For those of you just tuning in, The Washington Post — notorious for being caught in bed with The Obama Campaign — put out a hit-piece on Romney’s business record this week. The Obama camp has referenced this misleading piece in their new ad, calling Romney a “pioneer of outsourcing.” And that’s not all… quotes from the same piece have even made their way on to Obama’s teleprompter!

Essentially, this bogus WaPo story is helping Chicago build their bunk narrative that Romney is a heartless corporate raider (as opposed his actual label: an extremely successful American businessman).

Here is a look at the slides that the Romney camp sent to The Washington Post’s editors, including testimonials from the owners/former CEOs of the accused companies. Notice that four of the companies refute the claim, and two of them weren’t even involved with Bain Capital until Romney had finished his tenure.

Riddle me this: After reviewing these facts, how is it that WaPo still refuses to retract their inaccurate story?

I like the research that James Pethokoukis at American Enterprise Institute did on this a few days ago — definitely worth a read. Pethokoukis suggests a few more accurate headline options for the WaPo piece, rather than “Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas”:

Elections are about differences. Yes, I have some differences with the Concord Monitor’s recent editorial about my views. Newspapers play a vital role in the democracy and the Monitor, publishing daily since 1864, is among the venerable. Accordingly, I think it’s valuable to hash out our respective views.

I do indeed believe that President Obama has failed us. I am delighted that the auto industry is recovering, but that would have been less costly to taxpayers had Presidents Bush and Obama encouraged the companies to reorganize under the bankruptcy code, as do other companies in distress. If needed, government guarantees should have come after the restructuring, not before it. I am pleased that New Hampshire unemployment is faring better than the national average. But the President is the leader of the entire nation, not of just one industry or of one state.

The nation is suffering. Three years into his four year term, 20 million Americans are out of work, have given up, or are underemployed in part time jobs. Home values continue to go down. Foreclosures are at near-record record levels. Our national debt is skyrocketing–President Obama is on course to add as much debt by the end of his term as all the former presidents combined. Your editorial labels my conclusion that the President has “failed us” as an “absurd charge.” But given this record, I can reach no other conclusion.

Your editorial takes me to task for saying that he made the recession worse. He did. I have spoken with employers across the country and with few exceptions, they point to the President’s policies on taxation, cap and trade, card check, Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, regulatory expansion, and alarming federal deficits as having deepened and lengthened the recession. Economists tell us that we have been in the recovery period for two years, but as The Wall Street Journal concluded, President Obama’s recovery is not only anemic, it is one of the worst on record. The President made the recession worse and he made the recovery worse.

Forgive the bluntness in advance, I’m just so taken aback by the ignorance of some folks out there. First off, let me say that I like Sarah Palin. I appreciate her role in our party, and I’ve shown her my support in the past by voting for her — but the gal has some staunch followers that have gone off the deep end.

Really? ...All who didn't defend are cowards?

I’ve seen all sorts of random Romney jabs from her folks on twitter; people are asking things like, “Where is Mitt Romney?” and “Why on Earth hasn’t he rushed to Palin’s side to defend her in her darkest hour?”

Now, I normally don’t get too defensive over twitter comments, but when a supposed Sarah Palin information site allows their contributors to publish flat-out rubbish in Mitt’s name, I have to step in and back my boy up. At the mentioned site, they cite all the big events that have taken place over the past few months: November’s mid-term ‘shellaking’, the Tucson tragedy, and Obama’s recent State of the Union speech. Then the author goes on to say that Mitt has been “MIA”, even questioning if Romney had “joined the witness protection program” because he hasn’t chimed-in a bit on any of these issues:

They can't be serious...

Now it would be, surely, a reasonable expectation for Romney, considered by the left wing media to be the Republican’s candidate of choice for 2012, to have made substantial statements across most, if not all of these issues-surely that’s what candidates are expected to do.

All that we have heard, for all that we have read and seen from Romney, is silence.

What galls most is the total silence from him when Palin was being unfairly savaged over Tucson. It seems to me that if he had made any statement at all defending a colleague it would have only enhanced his reputation with the base. But there seems a lack of moral backbone and a self interest which has trumped the sort of action which could only have assisted his long term prospects.

I can’t believe it can happen, and will do all I can to prevent, that Romney can go sleepwalking to the nomination whilst being MIA and after Palin has taken all the blows that a spearhead does.

Again, it is Palin, (and Bachman) who have led the charge on the lightweight fluff of the SOTU, with any sort of powerful statement from Romney invisible, in the main media.

All that has surfaced is Governor Christie of New Jersey having a dinner meeting for Romney where tactics apparently were discussed.

If Romney believes that this behind the scenes politicking, this not taking any controversial positions, not defending his colleagues against vindictive attacks, will ensure his selection I think he is on the wrong path.

How ridiculous are these claims!? Okay, let’s start the debunkathon from the top:

Mitt Romney was very active in the mid-term elections. The man often hit several campaign stops, for different candidates, in different states on the same day. He raised more money and contributed to more endorsed candidates than any other PAC. It’s no wonder, then, that he would furnish a congratulatory response for the winning candidates the day after the election, and then again the day the new Republican majority was sworn in.

On the horrible day of the Tucson shooting, Mitt Romney happened to be on a Middle Eastern learning and listening tour. So from the other side of the globe, Romney made this statement condemning the senseless attack on Rep. Giffords — calling for a swift and harsh punishment for the perpetrator of the cowardly attack.

Frankly, I don’t see any reason why Romney would come to Palin’s defense on the whole ‘targeting’ issue. Surely, he recognizes that acknowledging the left-wing’s attempt to turn the tragedy into political gain would, in the end, only give them credibility. In my honest opinion, Palin herself should have just disregarded the smears, continued on with her normal life, and watched the left’s frustration peak as she refused to lend credence to their accusations. The ‘Mama Grizzly’, to my understanding, is a big girl who can fight her own battles. She doesn’t need help, she doesn’t ask for help, and honestly it is not Romney’s primary concern (especially being in the Middle East at the time) to come to her aid at every opportunity.

– - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -There, wasn’t that easy? All I had to do was take a step out of the dark and abysmal ‘Grizzly bear cave’, google “Mitt Romney’s statement on ________”, and educate myself. Any camp does a disservice to their candidate by spreading misinformation. I beg of you, Palin Information Blog contributors (that goes for C4P, too), take off those blinders for one minute and catch a glimpse at the world around you — you’ll realize soon enough that Mitt is not such a bad guy, that he and Sarah actually have a great amount of respect for one another, and though our respective leaders have differing agendas, we all share a common goal: To take our country back.

Oh, and here’s just a few other statements, stances, and upcoming events that further prove that, in fact, Romney is not in hiding:

Sometimes you just need to call a spade a spade. Over at B4M I’ve made it a point to have a lot of fun at Damien LaVera’s expense. He’s Howlin’ Mad Howie Dean’s Head Mitt Hit Man – which means he’s tasked with writing press releases every few days where he takes pot shots at “Smooth Talking Mitt”. For some odd reason, the irony of a DNC staffer deriding anyone as a Smooth Talker (in the wake of Slick Willy) has yet to dawn on LaVera. Add to that the fact he continuously quotes himself – probably only to increase his Google rating – and you end up with a really comical press release.

Well, today LaVera crossed a line. Evidently he thinks if you repeat a lie enough times it will be believed as the truth. Last December, the Boston Globe’s Jonathan Saltzman, Maria Cramer, and Connie Page wrote a story with the headline “Illegal Immigrants toiled for governor” – insinuating that then Governor Romney hired illegal immigrants to landscape his Belmont property.

There’s only one problem with the story. Governor Romney didn’t hire the Guatemalans – they worked for the landscaping company he hired. The company’s owner was, in fact, a legal immigrant. Governor Romney wasn’t required by any law or policy to enquire or verify the immigration status of the landscaping company’s workers. The Boston Globe’s story was based on a false premise and fueled by a false headline. Said story has long since been debunked.

Damien LaVera didn’t get that memo and probably ignored the facts surrounding this non-story altogether. Truth and other factual information mean little to him because that kind of thing doesn’t make for good press copy. Today LaVera released the following statement about Governor Romney:

…Romney himself employed undocumented workers at his own home in Massachusetts as recently as December.

This statement, taken from the first paragraph of LaVera’s self aggrandizing press release is an outright bold faced lie. Governor Romney did not employ the “undocumented workers”. He did not interview them, he did not directly pay them. The most contact he had with them was the occasional “Buenos Dias”. Unless you consider the occasional glass of water from Ann to be a direct payment, LaVera’s statement leaks credibility like a sieve.

Facts are stubborn things. The fact of the matter is, of the current crop of presidential contenders, Governor Romney is the only one who actually did something on the issue of illegal immigration. You’ll notice that article wasn’t cited in LaVera’s hit piece.

Damien LaVera’s job is to tarnish Mitt as much as possible. His job is an unenviable one because there is so little for him to work with that he must rely on lies, half-truths, and ad-hominem attacks to fill his daily press quota.

I’m sorry, Damien. Your cheap shot press release comes across a little more than a lie, and a pathetic one at that. Try harder next time.

In 2004 hundreds of Mormons crowded into the Provo Tabernacle and listened intently as a speaker (who was not a Mormon) declared: “We have sinned against you.”

Was this Bryant Gumbel apologizing for his remarks belittling the BYU Cougar’s 1984 NCAAF title? Was it Jim McMahon asking humble forgiveness for consistently sitting on the Wyoming stands for BYU homecoming games?

Richard Mouw, creating dialogue with the Mormons

No, it was noted evangelical scholar Richard J. Mouw, President of the Fuller Theological Seminary. Here is the context of his remarks:

Over the past half-dozen years I have been a member of a small group of evangelical scholars who have been engaged in lengthy closed-door discussions about spiritual and theological matters with a small group of our LDS counterparts. We have not been afraid to argue strenuously with each other, but our arguments have been conducted in a sincere desire genuinely to understand each other-and in the process we have formed some deep bonds of friendship. I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you.

Beyond the rush of news articles handicapping Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations is an unnoticed but significant thaw in the troubled relations between Evangelicals and Mormons.

The Big Freeze

Of course, before the thaw there was the freeze. In truth, the two religious movements share similar roots in the early 19th century revival period. However, while the predecessors of American evangelical thought like Ralph Waldo Emerson were calling for the return of ancient prophets in 1836, the Mormons were being forced out of Missouri and Illinois and anointing their own prophets. The motives behind the Mormon ouster were generally competitive (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints grew to 100,000 members in less than 15 years) and economic (Nauvoo, Illinois had a population rivaling Chicago in 1844).

The Mormon persecutions which forcible drove the Latter-day Saints from New York to Ohio to Missouri to Illinois to Utah have lasting impact today but only within the Mormon Church, and not for the reasons you think. Today, most Mormons are first generation converts. Mormons revere and honor the trials our forbearers encountered; those that were forced upon them (i.e. Hauns Mill Massacre) but also those they chose to endure (e.g. handcarts to the Wasatch front).

While this first religions rift ended in physical separation the second rift started with theological banishment from Christendom. In the 20th century Evangelical Protestants found a huge numbers rallying to the endearing message of pastors on the lecture circuit. Meanwhile, Mormons left their Wasatch haven to vie for converts and make an impact on the world. By 1950 the Mormon Church had over a million adherents. Anti-Mormon literature was sparse but rising.

By 1981, Mormons numbered 5 million with 2 million world-wide adherents. Together with the growth of non-traditional religious groups (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists) a good body of literature grew up around “cults” and how to avoid their “traps.” While the impetus for the anti-Mormon/anti-cult movement was competitive, the attacks were doctrinal in nature. In short, Mormon doctrine didn’t jive with traditional evangelical interpretation of the Bible. While some of these were genuine disagreements (the nature of God) other debates wallowed in accusations.

For example, Evangelicals have long accused Mormons of placing too much emphasis on their own works for salvation (“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” – Ephesians 2). In turn, Mormons have accused Evangelicals of simple aural salvation ignoring the works that would be evident in the believer (“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?” – James 2).

Evangelicals relied on early works to dispute Mormon teachings and rally others against Latter-day Saint missionary efforts. Meanwhile, Mormons were spreading their scholarly wings beyond Brigham Young University, building a large body of literature defending their beliefs, and earning qualified recognition in religious academia. And this is where our story begins.

A Dialogue Begins

In 1996 a very unlikely pair of scholars attempted an unprecedented feat: a book on Evangelical and Mormon beliefs. The “unprecedented” and “unlikely” part is this: one scholar is Evangelical, the other Mormon.

In one corner: Craig Blomberg (Ph.D., Aberdeen), professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary and the author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels and Interpreting the Parables. In the other corner: Stephen Robinson (Ph.D., Duke), professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University and the author of “Are Mormons Christians?” and “Believing Christ”. Under the traditional rules of engagement, the gloves would come off and the rhetoric would fly long and hard.

Astoundingly, and to the chagrin of many a rhetorical boxer, the book was a courageous attempt at “listening” to the other side, and explaining one’s own beliefs. In their book: How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, Blomberg and Robinson tackle six general topics: the Scriptures, God and Deification, Christ and the Trinity, and Salvation. Each author took up his pen for half of each chapter, discussing their respective religion’s viewpoint, responding to perceived “misconceptions” that the other side has, and co-authoring a conclusion to each topic.

The book dispelled common “caricatures” about each movement that have grown increasingly un-Christian over the past decade. Most importantly, the book became the first major dialogue between a recognized Evangelical scholar and his Mormon counterpart.

As Robinson points out in his introduction: “Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals do not understand each other very well, and much of what we say about each other is untrue.” He notes that previous dialogue “has been dominated by those on both sides having the least training or the worst motives.”

Referring to the popular board game Trivial Pursuit, Blomberg finds these past misunderstandings and misinterpretations understandable:

If an immensely successful game company cannot distinguish between nineteenth- and twentieth-century Mormonism [referring to a card in the game indicating that Mormons still practice polygamy], and if many in the popular press cannot distinguish between Jim Baker and Billy Graham, is it any wonder that grassroots Evangelicals and Mormons in churches around our country seem similarly confused? [pg23]

To return to our original point of doctrinal contention, Evangelicals see Mormons placing too much weight on the works we must perform to be saved, while Mormons see Evangelicals elevating grace to where no works are necessary. In reality, the two see nearly eye-to-eye on the issue, but couch their language in differing terms. As Robinson notes:

Unless Mormons and Evangelicals make greater efforts to investigate what the other means… we shall remain, to paraphrase Twain, two peoples divided by a common language. [pg 14]

Soon after its publication, a prominent head of an evangelical organization declared the book to be “an abomination”. Evangelical bookstores started boycott efforts against the publisher. Still others wondered aloud: “Are we to be seeking this kind of dialogue?” Deseret Book, the Mormon Church-owned publishing powerhouse, pulled its backing from the project which was originally intended to be a joint publication with InterVarsity Press. Clearly, this was new ground for all the parties involved. The boat was definitely rocking.

Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs… In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it.

Their purpose in publishing the article was hardly to concede the battle. Indeed, their efforts were “to serve to awaken members of the evangelical community to the important task at hand.”

With this article, these two scholars, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, walked away from traditional anti-Mormon approaches working from ignorance. Instead, the authors actually visited Mormon scholars at BYU and elsewhere. They read the major works on both sides of the debate and presented their findings openly and honestly. Their approach was seen by many in the LDS community as a fresh step in right direction.

Owen and Mosser start their article by demolishing several myths that have been persistent among Evangelicals regarding the Mormon Church:

From the Mormon perspective these were unprecedented and stunning admissions. Many members can speak to the frustrations involved in defending the church from debunked century-old attacks. Anti-cult literature will frequently insert whole sections from 19th Century anti-Mormon tracts and call it a day. Still others will dabble in psycho-analytics around Joseph Smith and early church members. Up until Owen and Mosser, there were very few critiques that had addressed Mormon scholarship and apologetics at all.

It was within the first paragraphs of the forward that Richard J. Mouw first made the admission we began with saying that he is “ashamed of our record in relating to the Mormon community.” He continues: “[By propagating] distorted accounts of what Mormons believe… and bearing false witness against our LDS neighbors, we evangelicals have often sinned not just against Mormons but against the God who calls us to be truth tellers.” Needless to say, he had my ear, more importantly my respect. As Mormon apologist Dan Peterson noted, the tone is “light years” from the usual garb.

As the forward states: the tone of the essays: “is a laudable attempt to set the record straight.” The editors, we are told, “have approached this project with the intention of talking to Latter-day Saints, not at them” (399, emphasis theirs). The authors recognize the past polemical mantra that has dominated the interfaith discussions to date:

[We] are not interested in doctrinal dispute for the sake of dispute. We are not interested in attacking and tearing down the beliefs of others like some sort of bellicose theological terrorists.

However, beyond the courtesy and rapport of the authors are serious disagreements with Mormon theology. “Mormonism’s challenges are real and can be dismissed only at a cost evangelicals are unwilling to pay” says Carl Mosser.

From this viewpoint, Mosser has taken an unprecedented step in his critique. He suggests that fellow critics should abandon century-old doctrinal odds and ends and focus on contemporary Mormonism. This would be a welcome change as many anti-Mormon books are lathered in quotes from second-hand hearsay and steeped in urban legends that they refuse to correct. Addressing Mormonism as it exists today and accepting that what we say we believe, we actually do believe, are exciting prospects to say the least. As Mosser states:

It is only common sense that our critiques of Mormon thought ought to be critiques of what Mormons are actually thinking. After all, are not actually held beliefs the ones that will hinder or facilitate true knowledge of God? Besides, when we insist that Mormons ‘really believe’ the traditional synthesis when many do not, our credibility is called into question.

Let me pose a quick analogy to sum this up:

In my high school drama program we had two types of celebrations after a big production. One was a boys vs.girls all out war with shaving cream, water balloons and general mayhem. The other was dubbed “the gentleman’s war”. In essence, you chose an opponent, put on your best Sunday suit, placed an old rug underneath your feet and calmly took turns pouring produce, pies, and pastries over each other. An egg in the shirt pocket, a cream-pie down the pants, Ragu Spaghetti Sauce and molasses on the head – and you took it like a man.

The advantage of the gentleman’s war over an all out mêlée was twofold. First, you had a deeper respect for your opponent which encouraged you to bestow only the finest weapons. Secondly, you had less of a chance of losing your two front teeth, which is what happened to someone my senior year and promptly ended the fighting tradition for good.

The newfound dialogue between Mormons and Evangelicals has left the mêlée in favor of the gentleman’s war. While it can get messy and sticky at times, the general tenor of the battle is wholly improved and marks a significant thaw in their relations.

Of course this is at the academic level. But the breach in the wall is large enough where a dialogue can begin in the grassroots. Is there discomfort among Evangelicals about Mormons? Yes. Is it insurmountable? No. After all, as someone noted, if common religious bonds were the only yardstick, conservative evangelicals would have to choose Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan. Mitt Romney’s religion and faith should not be a stumbling block for evangelicals looking for leadership in this country. In short, let the dialogue begin.

For those who are just starting your observation of Mitt Romney, I would like to introduce you to one of the stupid accusations that you will hear (until 2008, when eventually you will want to bash your brains out).

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post is the latest zombie who repeats the following: “Romney is more readily identified with the Salt Lake City Olympics and making the state that elected him the butt of his jokes.”

But no one ever gives you an example of the Jokes that Romney tells about Massachusetts, because there are none. Romney says that there are a lot of liberals there, but that is not a joke. It is an observation. And unlike observations from liberals, it is the truth. There are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts. Why does pointing this out hurt the poor feelings of the poor liberals of poor Massachusetts? Were they trying to keep their presence there a secret? Are they behind in child support payments, and think this information will help former wives or girls friends track them down? “Tanner was a liberal, maybe I should look for him in Massachusetts!”

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Is Romney a bully, and he would beat up Massachusetts students for their lunch money, and laugh at them, saying that they were liberals, who will probably live in Massachusetts the rest of their lives, because they are stupid Massachusetts liberals? Did he make people cry, when he points out that there are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts? Did he hurt their feelings?

What joy can John R. Bohrer have of repeating this stupid observation. Why do people have the desire to repeat over and over what the main stream media tells them? Is this all they got on Mitt Romney? Romney pointed out that a lot of liberals live in Massachusetts?

Then John R. Bohrer makes the fatal mistake of many liberal blogers when they try to debate. They don’t. He asserted that Mitt Romney was a flip flopper with out giving any examples of times that he has flipped or flopped.

John R. Bohrer said; “And that’s because Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he’s ever taken: temporary.”

Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a “flip flop” implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?

And, John R. Bohrer, I also get to also call you an idiot if you say that all of Romney’s positions have been “temporary” because of this one change.

I also get to call you a jerk for contributing to the stupidity of public discourse. You make an assertion (every position Romney has ever held has been temporary) without giving one example of times Romney has changed his position. No reasons to agree with you, just your attitude of self rightous disdain.

David asserts that he is able to read Mitt Romney’s mind twice. This is something else that will become infuriating over the next couple of years.

David says:

“Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now” and “Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he’s ever taken: temporary”.

David wrote his senior thesis on “Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez in 1968”. Was Robert also able to channel the personal feelings of these Cesar Chavez? People wonder what Cesar Chavez would have thought of the protest by illegal immigrants over the 2006 United States Congress immigration bill. Perhaps David can tell us what Chavez thinks, sense he is able to tell us with such clarity what Mitt Romney is thinking.

Mitt Romney said, “Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention.”

Does this the truth hurt the feelings of liberals? Romney is saying the truth. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. Is this fact off limits for Romney to point out? Should Romney not be allowed to have a sense of humor? How dare he laugh at the fact that he is a Republican Governor of the most liberal state, or must he assume a somber attitude, and never dare make fun of the fact that Republicans are a minority is Massachusetts? That Romney is able to laugh is admirable. If I had to live with these self righteous little pukes, I would be crying all the time.

Romney is not making fun of every citizen in Massachusetts. He is pointing out the fact that there happen to be a lot of liberals in that state. Is this wrong? Did he say everyone is Massachusetts is dumb? Did he say they are ugly? Did he make fun of them? No. He did not criticize them, he just said there are a lot of liberals. Is he wrong?

Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and the main stream media tell the citizens of Massachusetts that Romney is making fun of them.

Lyndon Johnson separated himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan “Grover the Good” to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York”. Every president has had to separate themselves for the benefit of stupid people who think that every single person of a state, religion, or race is exactly the same.

Romney has said:

“There’s no question I do love jokes. Indicating that there are very few conservative Republicans in Massachusetts, I do not think is a surprise to anyone inside or outside of Massachusetts and is in no way an indictment of the state. If anything, it’s a recognition that I have to do a better job of recruiting Republicans.” Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

So, to be clear, did Romney — who came here in 1975 to seek degrees from both Harvard Business and Law schools — pursue the governorship out of some Machiavellian plan to attain higher office, or does he love the state he leads?

“We’ve lived here now 34 years, raised all five of our sons here, and paid a mountain of taxes here. You don’t do that unless you enjoy the state and the economic, social, and cultural opportunities which it provides.” Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006